Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Green Issues

This section is designed for environment conscious users to take a look at some of the problems in the balance of the natural world caused by human growth and production. Let's raise awareness of the reality and magnitude of these problems and have a discussion on how effectively various governments and groups are addressing them.

Browse


Top Members Lists


Top tags

Recent Happenings

16 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Hunting in Animal Usage:
I think it's worth pointing out that hunting happens in the non-human segment of the animal world too. And not only do they hunt just like humans, they share their kill with their friends and nieghbours by setting a nice dinner out for others to join in. Of course lions and tigers don't don festive hats and coats adorned with leaf and branch patterns, nor do they drive around on miniature 4 wheel vehicles to get to the hunting grounds.
0 comments
votes 2 Helpful / 1 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

95 days ago

Review Icon Darkpalace reviewed Vivisection for drug testing / medical research in Animal Usage:
I don't believe in this at all. When you at first are under the brainwash process you may think it is necessary.

The sad thing about it all from my emotional viewpoint is that it is not the animals being tested but the humans. Really I don't know why God or whatever is there let's it go on. It is so obvious that it is wrong. I love to see kids that have gotten interested in stopping it. Seeing kids at UCLA going about trying to shame the university with their stupid experiments on helpless animals is great. It is stopped I think the product testing in England. It is an archaic method of doing things.

The trouble is on these things that funding is available. Many animals are tested over and over again. The one test is not really necessary. It is a way to make money and they use it.

People who are very afraid and think it will save even one person think it is ok. There can be many arguments on the side of medical testing but they are all mainly phony. There are so many stupid experiments in psychology books that it makes me sick.

I am so glad that it is being worked on. I try to use products that are not tested on animals for testing. Certain companies testing are ridiculous. Revlon had stopped it from people protesting. It is supposed to be.

The stupid experiments at the Museum of Natural History in NY where cats and kittens were experimented on. They looked at them for sex. Finding out what will happen if a kitten is blind. They were stopped.

The Univ. in Penn that was closed down for testing cars with apes. They had tapes of them laughing as they tested the apes and were hurt or died.

It is just like their own experiment of who will give a person pain if someone tells them to. Animal testing will ultimately not help them.

"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."-Mark Twain

The European Union is banning animal cosmetic testing and doing good. It is also banning products from other countries that are tested. Maybe that will make them sit up and take notice. I copied it off the other review links I was so excited.
0 comments
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

96 days ago

Review Icon ayn reviewed Vivisection for drug testing / medical research in Animal Usage:
Vivisection is a cruel action from one sentient being (humans) to another, (animals). Vivisection implies that we; with our emotions, our ability to reason and our capacity for pain, are more important than another creature with emotions, the ability to reason and a capacity for pain.
300 years ago doctors were treating heart attacks with leaches and putting contraptions around our genetalia that looked like it only belonged in the closets of the craziest sado-masochists. (http://www.collectmedicalantiques.com/quack4.html be sure to check out the spermatoria ring and the vaginal washer) animal testing may have served a useful purpose back in those days. However, we have evolved since then. Surgons no longer operate without first sterilizing
the equipment or amputate limbs without anesthesia. Medical Practice has evolved since then, so why haven't we?
Ethics aside, there are many limitations to vivisection that many of its supporters fail to consider.
To start, there is the obvious fact that humans, while animals, are physically different from many of the other animals that scientists test on. Remember phen-phen, was a great diet pill, many rats lost weight and suffered no side effects. Better put those pills on the market! whoops, turns out it killed people. Why? Apparently, rats and people are not the same. Want further evidence that animal testing is not the most reliable method? Unfortunately, I have several examples. TGN 1412 in the U.K. nearly killed many of the humans it was approved for.
Many toxicity tests seriously underestimate the human risk. Human sensitivity can be as much as 2,000 times greater than that of animals. They also fail to consider that the "information obtained from conventional acute toxicity studies is of little or no value in the pharmaceutical development process" (1)
Additionally, Tests in both rats and rabbits failed to detect the developmentally toxic effects of PCBs, ACE-inhibiting drugs, and other substances, and rabbits gave false negative results for toluene, tetracycline, diethylstilboestrol (DES), and other drugs (2)
Many tests did not detect the hazards of asbestos, benzene, bromodichloromethane, cigarette smoke, dichlorovos, lindane, DDT, selenium sulfide, and many other substances, delaying consumer warnings and worker protection measures by decades in some cases.(3)
Many biological mechanisms leading to cancer in rodents are irrelevant to humans (e.g., buildup of a2u-globulin in the kidneys of male rats, peroxisome proliferation in rodent livers, calcium phosphate-containing urinary buildup in rats) (4)
Rodents possess cancer-prone organs for which there are no human equivalents (e.g., forestomach, Harderian gland, Zymbal's gland) (5)
Animals are sometimes administered 100-times or more the equivalent human intake of a chemical (e.g., to consume the level of the pesticide Alar that was fed to rats and mice in one study would require eating 28,000 pounds of apples daily for 10 years) (5)
Commonly used strains of rats and mice are highly prone to spontaneous tumor development—even "control" animals who are not administered a test chemical—which confounds the interpretation of test results (6).
As a direct consequence of shortcomings cited above, pharmaceutical regulators have reported that fully 92% of drugs that pass preclinical (animal) testing fail clinical trials, because animal studies so often "fail to predict the specific safety problem that ultimately halts development" (7).

Seven different sources all confirm that animal testing is not the most accurate means to gather such important information. But if that is not enough, here is a quote from the FDA itself (Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. Bethesda, MD: FDA. 2004)
"Currently available animal models, used for evaluating potential therapies prior to human clinical trials, have limited predictive value in many disease states." As Joshua Lederberg stated "The one or two or three hundred millions of dollars a year that we're now spending on routine animal tests are almost all worthless from the point of view of standard setting... [I]t is simply not possible with all the animals in the world to go through new chemicals in the blind way that we have at the present time, and reach credible conclusions about the hazards to human health. We are at an impasse. It is one that has deep scientific roots, and we had better do something about it."
In an attempt to put a face on the atrocities that we are commiting I have helpfully submitted links with pictures. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH! DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE SQUEAMISH!
http://www.poppypalin.org/vivisection.jpg
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://liber ationbc.org/files/dog-res-01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://liberationbc.org/issues /vivisection&usg=__-uJp7O8XtUdvjV1ESgSlnnNHfaw=&h=389&w=500& ;sz=26&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=65K xHkWSR_dZ6M:&tbnh=101&tbnw=130&prev=/im ages%3Fq%3Dvivisection%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.k inshipcircle.org/columns_articles/images/pict_vivis ection.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kinshipcircle.o rg/columns_articles/topic_experimentation.html& usg=__LYPWYy7O5IEy7cGMCTnlz9Y96oE=&h=319&w= 237&sz=133&hl=en&start=7&um=1&t bnid=oaW0qHzwQzkrxM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=88&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dvivisection%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26 um%3D1
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.k inshipcircle.org/columns_articles/images/pict_vivis ection.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kinshipcircle.o rg/columns_articles/topic_experimentation.html& usg=__LYPWYy7O5IEy7cGMCTnlz9Y96oE=&h=319&w= 237&sz=133&hl=en&start=7&um=1&t bnid=oaW0qHzwQzkrxM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=88&p rev=/images%3Fq%3Dvivisection%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26 um%3D1

I am an animal activist and have used these sources, gathered in my 10 + years in studying the subject, in an attempt to keep my emotions out of this. If you are interested in the subject please read the full articles outlined below.

1-Chapman, K. & Robinson, S. (2007). Challenging the requirement for acute toxicity studies in the development of new medicines. London: UK National Centre for the 3Rs.
2-Schardein, J.L. (2000). Chemically Induced Birth Defects, 3rd Ed. Rev. New York: Marcel Dekker.
3-Seidle, T. (2006). Chemicals and Cancer: What the Regulators Won’t Tell You. London: PETA Europe Ltd. 5-
4-Cohen, S.M. (2002). Bioassay bashing is bad science: Cohen’s response. Environ. Health Perspect. 110, A737.
5-American Council on Science and Health. (1997). Of Mice and Mandates: Animal Experiments, Human Cancer Risk and Regulatory Policies. New York: ACSH.
6-Haseman, J.K., Hailer, R.J. & Morris, R.W. (1998). Spontaneous neoplasm incidences in Fischer 344 rats and B6C3F1 mice in two-year carcinogenicity studies: A National Toxicology Program update. Toxicol. Pathol. 26, 428-41.
7-Food & Drug Administration. (2004). Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. Bethesda, MD: FDA.


By the way, I'm not fond of testing on humans either.
0 comments
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Animal testing for cosmetics in Animal Usage:
What's the big deal? My Border Collie smells a little better with a bit of Sarah Jessica Parker's Lovely behind each ear and under her tail and the other dogs seem to find it alluring. And a bunch of uppity humans feel the need to protest in the streets. Geez.
0 comments
votes 1 Helpful / 2 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Cockfighting in Animal Usage:
There exists a widely held misconception that Michael Vick was using birds for this activity.
0 comments
votes 2 Helpful / 2 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Farm Labor in Animal Usage:
It is very diffiicult for them to pick and husk corn without the benefit of an opposable thumb.
0 comments
votes 1 Helpful / 2 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Bullfighting in Animal Usage:
Unless its a bull you are using, there's not really much point.
0 comments
votes 2 Helpful / 2 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon FranksWildYears reviewed Circus entertainment in Animal Usage:
It really hasn't been as entertaining in the modern age with all the safety regulations and concern for the well being of the Christians they used to throw in the ring with the Lions.
0 comments
votes 0 Helpful / 3 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon ayn reviewed As Pets in Animal Usage:
Animals do make great pets, for the right people. If you do your research first and pick the right species or breed that is right for you, realize that they take time money and energy and remember that they are, in fact, sentient beings then you and you and your animal companion will be very happy together. If you are not willing to put the time, money, energy and sometimes sacrifice into getting a highly intelligent sentient animal, then stay the hell away. Get a stuffed animal instead.
0 comments
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

97 days ago

Review Icon GoinDownSlow reviewed Animal testing for cosmetics in Animal Usage:
Al right, you know why your here. We're testing a new line of products for primates. Rating scale is detrmined by grunts. One means "I think it looks fantastic on me" Five means " I wouldn't wear this at the zoo under any cicumstances" Any Questions?

Grunt, grunt, grunt?

Yes, free samples are included. Thank you for your participation.

Now, let's get started...
0 comments
votes 2 Helpful / 3 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Green Products

Top Green Issues Reviewers



Amazon Shopping
$0.89
$1.09
$13.93
$6.98
$20.00
$95.00
$136.58
$67.77